representative thompson: thank you for appearing before this committee this morning. i'll get to when my question you had any dealings with that thesed facility detainees would be transferred to? governor haley: the department of defense has had no interaction with us whatsoever outside of suddenly getting a call saying they were going to be going to the charleston naval big. that's all that we've gotten. representative thompson: are you spending any money from taxpayers on maintenance in the naval operation? governor haley: we are trying to

plan on economic development issues within that area but that has all stopped now they decided to come in. it would be extremely helpful if the department of defense would engage with us and let us know what they're doing. mr. thompson: i agree. phone call would not be enough but if they demonstrated the cost of -- whatever's involved. is that a concern of yours. governor haley: they could tell me they would house these terrorists and i would not take them. the state of south carolina does not want them. there is no amount of money that they can pay, whether it be cost or supplement that would justify those detainees coming to south carolina. . mr. thompson: i appreciate your opinion. you referenced what happened to charleston relative to the unfortunate circumstances at mother emanuel. some of us also participated in the services and it was not a

good day. that's the other ugly head of terrorism.local can you tell me who has custody of the young man charged with killing the people at mother emanuel? governor haley: is he in south carolina. representative thompson: is he in a feral facility or state or county facility? governor haley: i believe he's in a state facility. do yountative thompson: know where? governor haley: he's in charleston? mr. thompson: the fellow that did that heinous crime is in charleston? governor haley: yes. mr. thompson: has it posed any security issues, to your knowledge, to the people of charleston? governor haley: we won't let it pose any security issues.

right now what i can tell you is the constant reminder. it's a constant reminder what happened, what we have to deal with, as we have to know that he's there. no one wants him there. and right now, they're in the process of going forward with the death penalty. representative thompson: and there's no issue on my part to pursue the death penalty at all. but the fact is sometimes we have difficult jobs to do , including dealing with bad people. as governor, you and local officials dealing with this bad person and whatever's required to make sure that that bad person is kept in a facility where he can't harm anyone, to the extent that he's prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, your oath of office and other things would allow you to extend whatever resources to guarantee the safety of the people in south carolina.

and that's the point i'm trying to get at. governor haley: yes, sir. i appreciate your point, mr. thompson. our goal is that we will deal with him as we need to deal with him. that was a homegrown issue that we will, you know, absolutely deal with. we just don't want a.d. moore -- 80 more coming to charleston. dealing with one has shaken the state enough. i can't imagine what we would have to do if we had to deal with 80 of them. mr. thompson: thank you. mr. perry: the chair recognizes the gentleman, mr. duncan. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. governor haley, i apologize. the ranking member had to bring a discussion about a deranged murderer into a discussion about guantanamo bay terrorists that are backed by global organizations known as al qaeda, isis, isil, whatever you want to term, boko haram, and the list goes on and on. there are global terrorist organizations that have a completely different mindset than individuals that are deranged and commit heinous

crimes in this country. for the record, mr. chairman, the governor sent a letter to secretary of defense ash carter along with governor brownback on august 25 and there was an executive order, july, 2015, by governor haley after the chattanooga terrorist attack. i would like to submit that for the record. mr. perry: without objection, so ordered. mr. duncan: there is a school, elementary school or middle school, near the naval big, is that correct? governor haley: yes. i talked to someone yesterday and said good luck tomorrow. he said everybody in my area is terrified what could happen. mr. duncan: we're talking about south carolinian mothers and fathers considering sending their children to a school in close proximity to some of the most wanted and dangerous terrorists in the world so thanks for pointing that out.

the letter that you and governor brownback sent to ash carter, did y'all get a response on that? governor haley: i'm not aware that we got a response. i will follow up and just confirm that but i am not aware of a response. they've been very -- they handled this very much on their own and have not included us in the process. i have had conversations of governor brownback and i have made it very clear and i want it to be made very clear, any governor that has to deal with this, i will fight for them to make sure it doesn't happen in their state. this is not just about south carolina. this is about every state in the country. mr. duncan: it sounded like -- it doesn't sound like the having anyion is dialogue with governors across the country their states are considered for the guantanamo bay terrorists? governor haley: no, sir. what we know is that already we have had to sit there and wonder

what's going to happen. again, the fear that is put in every state up for who we any is up for consideration, the fear that every state has is, what's going to happen? when's it going to happen? what's the turn-around time? we don't have any answers for them. mr. duncan: wow. the administration talks about stakeholder involvement, public involvement. they denied the shores off of south carolina, georgia, north carolina and virginia in the next five-year drilling plan for energy development so that our states can play a part in the energy renaissance and energy security and they touted the fact that they talked to stakeholders. when 78% of south carolinians that were polled wanted to see our areas opened up to stakeholders they talked to were a small group of environmentalists. here we have the administration wanting to fulfill a campaign promise and want to bring terrorists. these are not criminals. they are terrorists backed by the organizations i mentioned earlier, two states in violation of the ndaa which is a bilateral ndaa that goes back several congresses. bring these terrorists to south

carolina, kansas or maybe another state without any correspondence with the governor? the governor represents 4.8 million people in south carolina. the general assembly, 124 in the house, 46 in the house represent a combined total of 4.8 million people in south carolina. the congressional delegation, seven of us, represent 4.8 million people in south carolina who overwhelmingly support your decision to stop or try to stop the administration bringing terrorists to charleston, south carolina. so we listen to a small group of environmentalists about energy issues but he won't listen to the governor, the general assembly and the congressional delegation with regard to bringing terrorists to u.s. soil? that is alarming to me. so let me ask you this. has there been any sort of threat assessment with regard to the naval big, transferring the -- brig transferring the terrorists? i believe a terrorist on an

island isolated from the main land, very difficult to get to, difficult for the terrorist organizations that are supporting these terrorists to free them, attack the island or what not, they're guarded by united states marines, by the way, has there been a threat assessment about that brig in charleston, south carolina, about how that is a possible target and how that would be handled if you are aware of? governor haley: again, we have not been given any information by the department of defense. i look at this very much like i look at my correctional facilities. you never know what's going to happen. so if one has a medical emergency, you all of a sudden have to figure out, ok, where are they going to go? which hospital is going to be there? how will we secure them from one point to another? how do we have to handle during the point in the process? if there is a breakout or if they shut down the prisons or if they take over the prisons, which that can happen, those are all things we have to deal with now. but we're dealing with those in

south carolina. never have we thought about or can we comprehend dealing with that with terrorists that have done the crimes that they've done. mr. duncan: well, thank you for your valuable leadership on this. i'd be interested to see what other congressmen would say and what their governors would say if their state was targeted for these terrorists. thank you for your leadership and for being here today. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. perry: the chair -- governor haley: i would dare to say any governor, republican or democrat, would not want these detainees in their state. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman from south carolina. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond. mr. richmond: let me start off by saying, i know that mr. duncan apologized on behalf of the ranking member. i don't think the ranking member needs anybody to apologize for him but if you want to apologize that's fine. i'm sure he can speak for himself. the issue of bringing up mother emanuel and the fact that a terrorist is a terrorist is an issue that we've been raising on this side for a very long time.

it doesn't matter the nationality of the perpetrator, doesn't matter their motivation. terrorism is terrorism no matter the perpetrator or the victim. so when we look at those nine people that were killed, we call it domestic terrorism. and the fact that you can hold the domestic terrorist means you have the ability to safely how a very dangerous -- house a very dangerous person who others would want to do harm to. you would agree you at least have the ability to do it? governor haley: i will never question our military and our officers. we are totally capable, and i don't doubt them for a second that they are not able to do their job and able to do their job well. i am talking about the environment. you bring upon a state when you create that kind of fear. you send a chill factor into a state that you can't put a cost on, that you can't put a reason on, that you can't give an explanation for.

i know we have the best military in the world. my military will do whatever they have to do to protect the people of south carolina. my officers will do whatever they have to to protect the people of south carolina. that's not the issue. that will never be the issue. the issue is, why would you want to bring these detainees that have done these types of terrorist acts onto american soil when you don't have to? you don't have to. i am an elected official. i had campaign promises. i know what that's about. you want to fulfill everyone. it's in your heart and soul that you want to fill it. i believe that president obama had his intentions back in 2009 when he was going against ms. clinton that he had a reason for saying that. these are different times. we are seeing different types of terrorism. we are seeing a different level of terrorism. it is time to rethink this and understand that those people that are doing those types of

acts that we send to guantanamo, we're sending them there for a reason, we're keeping them there for a reason. mr. richmond: well, let me ask you a question. in 2002 suspect terrorist was transferred to a naval brig into north carolina, same location being looked at today for some of the transfers. did his presence cause concern? did you even know he was there? i don't think you were governor then but, you know, did it create an uproar when we transferred him there? governor haley: i know that he was there but the concern has -- you're not talking about one, and not only that, this is a different day in time than it was back then. we've seen tremendous amounts of terrorist attacks. you're looking at a time where you want to bring a different level of terrorist to south carolina. so i don't think you can compare that one detainee that we happen to have at that time compared to

the others. totally different. mr. richmond: just because of the raw -- because of the size of the number? governor haley: because if you go and you bring these detainees here, now the way the element comes to the area, it will encourage more people to want and go and be in south carolina whether to protest, whether to join forces, whether to create homegrown terrorism, all of the things that governors are trying to protect them from as it is, you're creating a whole new magnet for that when you do something like that. that is the concern. we now -- i get flood reports. my state law enforcement division. the flood reports we get are now watching all of the homegrown terrorists that we think we may be getting there that are being -- getting that are being trained overseas. and thenaer co -- are coming back. if you put these terrorists in

south carolina it creates a magnet. the propaganda you claim is in guantanamo bay, you are going to move that propaganda to charleston, south carolina. mr. richmond: well, let me just say -- i'm from new orleans. tourist area, very similar to charleston. both founded because of the slave trade. i understand tourism being a base. i guess my ultimate question is, this is just a classic example of i guess all of the american territories and states saying not in my back yard. let's leave them in cuba because we don't have a responsibility over there and we don't care about how, you know, ramifications over there. so if everybody says, not in my back yard, which is basically the argument that i hear, is we just don't want the chaos associated with housing these bad guys. governor haley: so that would imply all the governors are wrong? mr. richmond: i'm asking is that the argument, not in my back yard? governor haley: this is not me saying, oh, put it in south carolina or put it in kansas or put it in -- i don't want it going into any state in the country.

this is not a not my back yard. this is the united states of america. this is an area we want to keep safe. and to bring terrorists from a place where they cannot harm anyone to an area that has populations within their states that they can harm and god forbid one error happened, one, none of us wants that on us. none of us. we can't afford that. and for what? why are we having this conversation? what is the urgency to move these detainees? i have yet to hear what the logical reasoning is. the propaganda is not true because they hate us because the terrorists will always hate america. they hate our freedoms. they hate what we stand for. they hate that we're against terrorism. so for the tax money, d.c. has never been that stickler on cutting tax dollars. i think we could help you save some money so you can keep guantanamo bay open. when you talk about the other things that this will do, there are -- i just don't get it. and neither do any of the

governors across this country understand what the urgency is to move terrorists that are in a place where we know they can't touch americans. why do we want to put them on american soil? because now we not only know if they come to american soil, what sort of rights are they now going to have? we watched the supreme court totally start to go down that slippery slope. we dealt with the habeas corpus issues. we dealt with all this. what rights will we say they have because they are on u.s. soil? no one has yet been able to answer that question and everyone governor wants to know what rights these terrorists have. we deserve answers as governors. we deserve answers to what you are trying to do to our states and the fact that no one in the federal government will give us those answers is an unfair assumption and an unfair thought to not let the people of this country speak up because no one wants guantanamo bay in the united states. mr. richmond: mr. chairman, i

see my time has expired. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter. mr. carter: thanks, mr. chairman. governor, thank you for being here. let me begin by saying i associate myself with your earlier testimony about this being an ill-conceived plan. i just think it's absolutely ludicrous to think that moving these prisoners to american soil could somehow improve our national security. i just don't get it. i don't understand it at all. and i can tell you, i think this is just, again, an ill-conceived plan to try to keep a campaign promise which makes it even worse. governor, my question is this. i have the honor and the privilege of representing coastal georgia, of savannah. you mentioned in your opening testimony that charleston was

the second most favorable vacation spot behind savannah and georgia was the friendliest state. i wanted to make sure we got that clear. nevertheless, tourism is extremely important in charleston, extremely important in savannah. i know it's impossible to put an economic cost, to put a number on that but can you imagine, can you just elaborate on the impact that might have on tourism? the driving force in our economy in savannah, in charleston and in new orleans. governor haley: well, send greetings to my sister state and the governor as well. i will tell you that the costs associated, who's going to take their family? who's going to take their kids? because if you go to where the naval brig is, that's where the tourist issues are. if you want to go down to the market, look at the houses, you just as a mom, you don't take your children anywhere near where you think there could be a threat.

it's the perceived idea that they don't know. so number one, tourism and conventions and all of those things would stop going to that state and that's a big part of it. secondly, you would stop having the element of tv shows. we now have "top chef" coming to south carolina. those questions are the things they ask because they don't want to be in a state that has any negativity to it. then you look at the fact even with the economic development projects that we have done in south carolina, i don't even know how i would begin to talk to a c.e.o. about something like that. i don't know how i could do that because what people don't realize, it's not just getting a plan and having them manufacture or do work. they want a place where they can bring host, their suppliers and their customers and their executives to that area. what are you going to do to charleston when do you that? mr. carter: sure. last time i checked it was my impression that the role of the

federal government was to assist you and to help the local governments -- governor haley: protect the citizens. mr. carter: absolutely. on that point, let me say this. i always say the number one responsibility of the federal government is to protect our people and our homeland. for the life of me i can't understand how this is going to do anything except the exact opposite. but on the point of the federal government and their role, it seems to me like this is going to obviously -- i'm a former mayor and a former state legislator. it's obvious this is going to push more costs and more responsibility down to the states and down to the local communities. how are you going to deal with that? governor haley: it's one more thick we have to deal with. not only is it going to be security and it's going to be military, it's going to be planning of medical services, it's going to be planning for should something goes wrong, it has to planning for routes and things we have in place. governors have so much pressure now just in dealing with all the issues. whether it's tracking the terrorism in our state, whether

it's tracking corrections and prisoners and making sure they stay in their place, this is a whole other level of threat. trying to track the cost of this, i don't know what it is but, again, even if it was zero, even if they agreed to pay us, cost is not an issue on this. this goes far beyond it. mr. carter: absolutely. i could not agree more. to the point -- you brought it up a number of times during this testimony about protesters and about the propaganda portion of it. obviously, and today we are in an immediate newscast. this is being tweeted right now, i can assure you. the propaganda is a concern. it's got to be a concern of all of us and certainly i know it's got to be a concern of you as a governor. governor haley: i don't agree with president obama about the propaganda of guantanamo. i think wherever you move the location you are creating that same propaganda. it doesn't change anything. mr. carter: not at all. again, let me thank you for

addressing this and making the points succinctly that you have it doesn't matter what state this is, it doesn't matter what city this is, we don't need this on our homeland. the number one responsibility of the federal government is to protect our homeland. not to bring these people over here. don't we understand it? that's what the people are saying. no, we don't want them over here. governor haley: i will stand side by side with any governor that has to deal with this. mr. carter: thank you, governor. thank you for your testimony. mr. perry: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk. mr. loudermilk: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, governor, for being here. just as a side note. all of my family is from walhalla, south carolina. governor haley: we will take very good care of them. mr. loudermilk: all right. could you answer, in your opinion, why are we currently keeping the detainees at guantanamo bay instead of originally just bringing them to the u.s.? governor haley: i mean, i think if you look at what the thought

process was, anyone that was involved in a terrorist act or anyone that could possibly that was in -- that could possibly do something of a terrorist attack, we put them there for a reason and that is to keep the people of the united states safe. mr. loudermilk: because they are threats to the -- governor haley: because they are absolutely threats to the american people. mr. loudermilk: the idea was to keep them off u.s. soil. in the case of escape or any other action. in fact, speaking of escapes, they do happen. in 2010 we had 2,500 escapes in the united states. in 2011, 3,100. in 2012, 2,500. in 2014, over 2,000. so escape is something that we must be concerned about. governor haley: it's something that we deal with in south carolina and every governor deals with across the country. mr. loudermilk: mr. richmond brought up -- sorry, the ranking member brought up the case of the shooting in south carolina. that was an american citizen who

was under your legal jurisdiction, correct? governor haley: that is correct. mr. loudermilk: so we would be adding more perpetrators into your state that aren't necessarily under your jurisdictional boundary? governor haley: that's exactly right. mr. loudermilk: increasing the threat -- of which we have threats in this nation. there is another aspect of this is -- is south carolina or charleston ever susceptible to natural disasters? governor haley: yes, of course. mr. loudermilk: such as hurricanes? governor haley: yes. mr. loudermilk: has the administration talked about the evacuation plan or security risk should you have to evacuate a detention facility in the case of a hurricane? governor haley: we have to do that. if that happens we would certainly have to figure out how to do that. that creates not only more security but where do you go? what do you do with a terrorist like that? mr. loudermilk: and, of course, that would have an impact on you, not only -- not only the cost to the state but taking resources away that should be there helping citizens of south

carolina to escape the disaster. governor haley: the problem is, what answer do i give to the people of south carolina? because those are the questions they're going to have. and no answer i can give them is ever going to be good enough. mr. loudermilk: there's one other area that brings a threat that i haven't heard many talk about, and that is the threat of additional terrorist attacks because you are housing known terrorists. if you recall the garland, texas, terrorist attack, that was because there was an art competition that they felt was offensive to muslims. governor haley: if we housed anything in a state, that's going to be more of a reason to want to go to that area to do something in that area to help get that person out or to make a statement.

mr. loudermilk: do you know if any detainee has ever escaped from guantanamo bay? governor haley: not that i'm aware of. mr. loudermilk: do you know if any detainee or attempted terrorist attack against a u.s. military facility at guantanamo bay? governor haley: not that i'm aware of. mr. loudermilk: what would your assessment be if there was an escape, would that person be a direct threat to citizens of the united states other than the military? governor haley: it's the whole reason they are there so that they are not. to protect rights, freedoms, and lives of the united states citizens.

mr. loudermilk: so guatemala is working. governor haley: it's been working. while we are having this conversation, just baffles me. mr. loudermilk: there are certain things this government and administration does that baffles a whole lot of people in the united states, but being baffled and being threatened, your life, liberty, security, and your family is a totally different aspect. that's what i cannot understand why we want to change something that is working and put your state at risk. i'm out of time. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, governor. mr. perry: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. katko. mr. katko: thank you, great to have you here today. i'm from syracuse, new york. not new york city, upstate new york. i, too, have family in charleston. been there many times. governor haley: beautiful areas, visit often. mr. katko: i want to get a feel

from you if i may to what degree has the administration consulted with you or worked with you while evaluating the suitability of charleston for a site for their -- possibly a site for these detainees? in 2015 they did a survey, did he they work closely with you? governor haley: everything that they have done, they have done on their own. the only thing they did was call us and let us know they would be visiting charleston, which was the first we heard of to go look at the naval base. mr. katko: are you telling me here they made no effort to get -- input from you about this possible transfer of detainees? governor haley: no. what that's done to not only me but every other governor, it's left us without any information to share with our constituents or any way to defend ourselves against the possibility of these detainees coming to our state. mr. katko: they never spoke to you at all about the potential economic costs of bringing them

to charleston? governor haley: they did not. mr. katko: they talk to you at all about the possible security concerns that may emanate from bringing these detainees to charleston? governor haley: they did not. mr. katko: did they give you a heads up or input at all regarding the potential for charleston becoming a target if these detainees were put there? governor haley: they have not given us any information to provide any comfort whatsoever. mr. katko: that seems outrageous given the fact there is a wealth of information about this. i'm on the homeland security committee as a whole. and i have done a lot of work with respect to isis. one thing's for sure is that like you said earlier there is a totally different threat dynamic now than there was 10 years ago in this country. isis and affiliated groups are radicalizing americans over the internet to do violence at home this to foment on e file and, it is something they

will. i am hoping to talk with you about that. gov. haley: we welcome them talking to us, because then we would be able to tell where we are at least in the situation or if there is a naval break and we have gone no information whatsoever. mr. katko: that seems particularly outrageous to me. so it is not a maximum facility? we would have to do some things to it and i think may be the department of defense has figured that out. mr. katko: i was a federal prosecutor and i prosecuted the cartel of drug traffickers and i can tell you that there are individuals that i prosecuted in maximum facilities for much less egregious crimes than these individuals have perpetuated against the united states. it is just shocking to me that we have different standards in the federal system, medium max

and super max and it is strange and itade that facility is perplexing at least to say the least. gov. haley: i agree. now have to ever considered or consulted about possibly taking legal action from stopping this from happening given that it is illegal under the law or that spendited states would any money to transfer individuals from guantanamo bay to the note states? gov. haley: governor brownback and i both sent letters because at the time it was kansas and south carolina that were states that were being strongly considered. we sent a letter to secretary carter saying that we absolutely didn't want to have this happen, have heardif i something, i will absolutely fight, i will absolutely sue, i will do whatever we need to do to protect our state, and republican or democrat, i will

stand with any governor who has to go through this. i know the fear it can put into the minds of the people in their state and the security concerns that they would have. mr. katko: lastly, is it true that most if not all of these detainees are facing a military tribunal? gov. haley: i think so. mr. katko: is guantanamo bay a military facility? gov. haley: so what are we doing is one-time obey a military facility? gov. haley: yes. mr. katko: so what are we doing? [laughter] have the same question. >> and the bill that i have filed would give paul ryan and the house to stop this with

legal means. thank you for your time. i yield back. thanks thehe chair gentleman and thanks governor haley for her current -- for her questions. the clerk will prepare the witnesses'able -- table for further review.

chairman: all right, everybody, we reconvene, the chair asks the lady sit in and is so ordered, and the chair introduces the second panel and it will be a little out of order. we start with michael bouchard,

is that correct? oversees oakland county and oversees an annual budget of over $140 million. bou is testifying our behalf ofc the law enforcement agency ofhard representing counties or parishes with a population of 500,000 or more. each representative represents 108 americans. mr. ken gude is a senior fellow at the center for american progress. he was a policy analyst at the center for national security studies. at this point, the chair yields to the gentlelady of kansas. you, mr. chairman, for

allowing me this great opportunity for introducing mr. thompson, the leavenworth district attorney. in thompson is a kansan every sense of the word. he is a leavenworth native and his family dates back 150 years in leavenworth. he went on to graduate and wash university school of law, his knowledge in the impact that a detainee transfer would have on leavens worth and the entire is part of his investigation as a top law enforcement official and he has context and insight into this process. i thank him for taking his time to come to washington to sit before the subcommittee to answer questions. i have full faith in his ability and he will help congress and the president, i think, better

understand the implications and the repercussions of such a transfer. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. chairman: the chair recognizes the gentlelady, mrs. jenkins. the chair recognizes mr. bouchard for an opening statement. mr. bouchard: thank you mr. chair, and distinguished members of the committee. of oaklandl bouchard county and i run one of the officessheriff's in the nation. often times, the head of law enforcement is not notified of ahead of time. despite years of conversation about opening get mo, no signal noint has this administratio requested our viewpoint on this.

we are adamantly opposed to any effort to close gitmo and transfer detainees to u.s. soil. evolved in the encryption of media and propaganda, lone wolf attacks and recruitment, and we have seen it has exponentially grown. security of the homeland cannot be an afterthought. we proactively plan and practice for the and thinkable. mumbai, iattacks in contacted all of the chiefs in and i asked them to talk about this on a regular basis for just such as scenario. this could be a powerful inspiration for a lone wolf attacker and for recruitment. we know that isis has gone so far to suggest targets, including a kill list with home addresses. clearly this could easily the added to such a list.

and a bigt is ongoing concern. the same standards that are detainees federal must be applied to quantize low. 2003, there was a testimony before senate that said we know that inmates are vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists. there was 30% of former gitmo prisoners who were confirmed or suspected of being back in terrorism. ago,ionally, a few months iraq authorities arrested isis affiliates. with high recidivism and proclivity for violence, releasing detainees is counterintuitive, even in the increased threat environment that law enforcement has been continuely to asked --

asked to do more with less. we have not been given the associated equipment with transferring detainees to the u.s.. programs that were to address the capabilities, however, over the years we have seen a steady decline in funding. most recently, in president obama's budget cut, it was cut by 45%. the federal surplus program and grant program are great examples of partnership with local communities. through executive action and not legislation, this administration recalled 1033 military equipment and put bertelsen -- put burdensome requirements on others. bernardinoof the san terrorist attack, police in san

bernardino called the terrorists and they came prepared the day. became less prepared because of an executive order. gitmo houses detainees and putting them in u.s. italy's would present an extraordinary burden on the local community. sheriff mcmahon, a local friend of mine in san bernardino, has acquired in overtime bill at a expenditure. when emergencies arise, federal officials in emergencies are not the first responders. it is the locals. they must betrayed and equipped to deal with every situation. bring people here will necessitate that expenditure. that means significant planning, training, and equipment, and all of these unreimbursed costs have been ignored in so-called cost saving efforts.

this would be a local responsibility and cost as would escape. we have always been thought to be a positive source of collaboration and ideas and we applaud the community for hearing our thoughts. as to chairman, thank you for your time and i would be happy to answer questions. thanks thehe chair gentleman and the chair ,ecognizes mr. gude, correction we will go ahead with your description. mr. gude: thank you, mr. chairman, and i know you are in iraq war you are ian veteran. i think it is incredibly important to spend time talking about the facts associated with the implications of bringing 100 detainees into the united states. first, i want to say i do agree with president obama in closing guantanamo would be in the

best interest of the united states. broadly-shared views from senior officials and national security officials in and parties in 2007, 2008, 2009. george w. bush wrote about the necessity of closing on tom and ---- holding quantum am in a closing guantanamo. there were a host of other high-ranking officials that agreed with the necessity of closing it. reiterated this year just how necessary it was. express myo and sincere disappointment that you would so casually impugned the integrity of our military officers and men and women serving in the pentagon that they would be presenting what there is not their full judgment to this at the restoration.

it is in the national security interest of the united states in closing guantanamo. i think you all an apology and i think when you were serving, you would not let that cloud your judgment and i feel like that kind of comment is indicative of why it is so difficult to have a reasoned debate and a reasoned analysis of this issue. it is a critical national security issue. they'll looking and assessing and whether or not guantanamo the cheney's and international terrorists would be inside u.s. prisons or secured military prisons, we don't have to speculate. we have the wisdom of experience. i think it would surprise everybody here in this room, i think it would surprise everybody watching on tv, everybody following this debate, that it was a republican president who brought a terrorist into the united states.

why that was to me not the same kind of incredible security risk that governor haley and the members of this committee seemed to indicate it was in the first panel when he was held in charleston for the first two years. also, i was a video, the man accused of trying to detonate the united states -- also, jose padilla, the man accused of trying to detonate a bomb in the united states. there were no protestations from governor sanford to the bush administration or to congress that those detainees in charleston represented the kind of security risk that we discussed this morning. 2002 this of that in attack meant that we face somehow a lesser threat than we do now i find very hard to believe. and the detainees in trouble and

are not the only ones. we have at least 11 states in statestrict -- 11 and the district of columbia terrorists in maximum-security prisons and secure facilities. according to the ranking member's opening statement, just 15 miles from now, the accused leader of the benghazi attack is sitting in prison awaiting trial. he has been there for over two years, there has been no protests, there has been no notion ofy, but the bringing guantanamo detainees into the states in a very similar situations presents not acceptable risk is hard for me to understand and hard for me to fathom. i would just close with one last comment regarding the implications for state and local officials. there is emergency response planning that these individuals

have to deal with on a day to day basis with almost every eventuality. notion that pentagon officials and the officials in the cities and states of south carolina and kansas have not been prepared strikes me as hard to believed, because there could be quantized road detainees there now as there were guantanamo detainees there years before and we changed the fact that we have already done these kinds of plans. conclude my will opening statements and i look forward to your questions. thank you. chairman: the chair in a recognizes mr. thompson for his statement. mr. thompson: esteemed committee, i would like to first think our veterans as well as those who have worked in guantanamo bay. i would also like to thank our law enforcement officers in giving me this opportunity to speak today. today i speak on behalf of leavenworth and i thank you for that opportunity.

i look at the impact this would have on communities, particularly lemons worth. today i want to focus on the issues of concern, first, the by the obamaation ministration. second, the indications to the kansas city metro area if the detainees were transferred there, and third, i would like to talk about the locations to the mission of love is worth. the county attorney, i am the chief prosecuting officer and must assure the safety and welfare of our community. it is important for me to have as much information as possible in regarding to the community's safety. failed toment has share any information with local officials. without this information, my community has no way to prepare for the economic burden or the

potential threats it may receive detainees from guantanamo bay. fresh from attacks of san bernardino and brussels, we remain on guard for terrorist attacks. we would become a high priority attack for terrorist. in 1997, a convicted perpetrator of the 1993 world trade center bombings was housed in leavens worth. we received several letter bombs. law enforcement as well as national law enforcement had to spend significant resources to respond to this threat. to build a new facility in fort leavenworth, it would cost $91 million and take three years, and that is in comparison with the previous facility that was built 10 years ago. paul lewis at the department of defense and the special envoy for the closure of guantanamo

bay said that any facility would require adequate medical facilities. for leavenworth does not have these such facilities. the closest facilities are the university of kansas medical center, which is roughly 45 minutes away. there would be significant the detaineess if would need to be trans-for their further care. there are roadways that are less than a chip shot away from the border. carries a railroad that hazardous materials. if it were necessary to shutdown, it would cost the community $100 million worth of revenue per day. there is an airport shared by my community that would be rendered useless for a no-fly zone required such as that guantanamo bay requires right now. fortifyd necessary to the fort's borders, families

that surround the areas that owned it before kansas was even a state would have to lose their land to eminent domain. the county is home to over 75,000 residents. because the fort leavenworth is there, approximately 20,000 veterans residing in and around the leavenworth community area, and many of those serving in afghanistan and iraq. some of them suffer from ptsd as well as serious injuries from urs of service. gold star members have families buried just yards away from the disciplinary benefit -- disciplinary barracks. how would this affect these people, psychologically? finally, fort leavenworth has the generalof

officers, powell and eisenhower among the attendees. our officers, as well as international officers, bring their families to our community, which is a significant economic benefit to our area. president obama wants, and obey -- wants guantanamo bay closed because of our economic connection with cuba. this would impact losing relationships with international officers and this could have a long-term effect on our foreign relations. putting it frankly and from a friend of mine, placing the detainees in fort leavenworth auld be similar to building prison on harvard yard. i look forward answer questions from you and the committee. chairman: the chair thanks mr. thomas and the chernow can isis himself for five-minute -- for now minutes -- the chair

recognizes himself for five minutes of questioning. the san bernardino terrorist attacks, how much would it be? $350,000 in: extended overtime. chairman: $350,000 in overtime and 90 million dollars in unexpected costs to the local government and as i recall, you said unreimbursed costs, right? so the federal government had to go back and take care of the local community that has bared the burden of the terrorist attacks that some have said that all agencies are prepared to handle and deal with at any time and we understand that law enforcement does every single thing it can, but we understand we are all human and they only have to be right one time, right? are saying ise

that every community has to be prepared for $350,000 in overtime at minimum and up to $90 million in unexpected costs for a local attack. am i correct sir? yes.ouchard: chairman: i don't know anybody an apologym ,, mr. gude. -- we server worn at the pleasure of the commander and chief, period, period. we offer our opinions, however, once the commander in chief gives orders, our job is to

salute, and if you had ever worn the uniform, if you had ever served, you would know that. moving on -- mr. gude: [indiscernible] chairman: like i said, moving on. how would you know about the national security strategy? i have freely read the national security -- frequently, frequent lee. many times, it is part of my job. -- do you know the strategy isn't updated to concur with current event and it evolving events, right? mr. gude: the national security strategy has been updated two times in this administration. chairman: and you have read both? mr. gude: yes. chairman: ok, what background do you have, what professional background do you have, other

than working at the center for 13 years now, what professional background, training, etc., do you have in military and national strategic studies, what have you? what back rent you have other than working at this location -- background do you have other than working at the location? mr. gude: i have a professional background -- chairman: but what does that mean? what training do you have? mr. gude: i have been following these issues and i have been deeply involved in the. chairman: many of other americans have as well but they don't come before congress and testify. many americans are concerned but i am asking if you have any law-enforcement training? mr. gude: no. chairman: military training? mr. gude: no. chairman: diplomatic training? mr. gude: i don't know what that is. chairman: it has specific training in diplomatic relations?

mr. gude: no. chairman: i am looking at your own testimony here where you say for these reasons, a long bipartisan list of national security figures do not believe guantanamo advances national security interest. i can tell you that a whole lot of people have served to have training whether they are law enforcement or national security or whether in the diplomatic court they disagree, so with all due respect while i appreciate your opinion and many of us do and we asked you here for your alternative opinion and quite frankly, i'm not sure it is an informed opinion and we appreciate that. let me a you this. i asked some folks recently -- let me ask you this. i asked some folks recently about a similar subject, a special envoy for guantanamo closure and a special envoy for guantanamo detention closure and both of those individuals said

numerous things like you do about it is a magnet for recruiting and guantanamo is and it -- it -- it hurts our national security, it hurts us to have it there, and i ask, what empirical data do you have to support that? what empirical data do you have to support the claim that moving these individuals to south carolina or anywhere in the middle united states would have a difference? would make any difference? provided me nols empirical data of cost or otherwise. can you provide any at this time? mr. gude: there was one of the most famous cases during the bush administration, there was an interrogator, a military interrogator from iraq, reported at the time that the number one recruitment tool that al qaeda in iraq was using to draw individuals into their ranks with the existence of guantanamo bay and that it was clear and it

was persuasive and it persuaded not people just like me, but people like powell, jim bakker, people like the president of the united states, george dubya push, john mccain, you can impugn my credentials all you want, i think you will have a harder time of impugning -- george w.ials bush, john mccain, you can impugn my credentials all you want, but i think you will have a harder time of impugning their credentials. chairman: it is my job to question and by the way, i don't understand and you haven't told me how it makes any difference whether it is in guantanamo or south carolina? can you tell me a difference? is a symbolantanamo of the torture and abuse that occurred during the bush and ministry and in that prison and in other prisons. is not simply propaganda against guantanamo and it is not simply associate with the fact that there are military detainees there.

there is nothing wrong with that. there was a no propaganda associated with the charleston naval break -- chairman: so when we moved these prisoners to south carolina and the propaganda moves to south carolina, that would then justify and validate the governor's concerns -- mr. gude: i don't think there is a way to validate that -- chairman: you have any way to show? talking about three, all of them, all in that location, all in the focus of international terrorism. mr. gude: i understand that is your opinion and that would follow -- chairman: i am not talking about my opinion, i am asking if you have any evidence. mr. gude: there is no evidence -- chairman: thank you, at this point i yield the questions to the general me, mr. richmond. mr. richmond: based on history, because you can only use history to predict the future, based on

history, when south carolina contained and held three, was any propaganda targeted at south carolina? mr. gude: no. mr. richman: thank you. mr. thompson, you mentioned in your testimony and i'm trying to relate this altogether that the lack of military equipment and the 1033 program causes some concern for housing detainees? bouchard: this. thompson: causes us great concern because the focus it is about of perception and not reality. mr. richmond: so you think it was perception that some of our military -- our police forces were being militarized and going into urban neighborhoods? i am saying that

the perception has been fostered and that the police have been militarized is wrong. that and armored tank pulls up to a bank or grocery store every day to give money and a police vehicle shows up with the same armored vehicle, somehow it is scary or militarized, it is false. that is there to protect people. mr. richmond: i understand, but when a tank is going through an urban neighborhood -- mr. bouchard: we have no tanks. with noarmored vehicles weaponize -- that is part of the misperception. there are no armored tanks in america. carriers.rsonnel just goingd: we are to agree to disagree on that and i think that one of the things, especially in the petrochemical industry, that is one of the things that my sheriffs ask for. i'm just trying to figure how we made that connection.

you also mentioned there is a high recidivism rate with guantanamo prisoners. what is the recidivism rate? who was released at how often do they recommit a crime? mr. bouchard: there has been a number of studies. the most recent one that i had read that said there was 30% of guantanamo detainees returning to the battlefield. can i comment on that one? mr. richmond: sure, but what is the recidivism rate at the largest u.s. prison under your jurisdiction? mr. bouchard: depends on the crime. mr. richmond: no, no, no, no. but let me ask a question, because i was just -- i was on the judiciary committee and everyone knows that the general citizen rate -- and everyone knows the general recidivism rate of their prisons. mr. bouchard: the point that i wish to make -- mr. richmond: don't you run a local jail? dependshard: i do, it

on the jail, typically it runs between 30% to 60%. these figures, i think they must be properly assessed by bringing them down between the detainees that were released during the bush administration and the detainees released from guantanamo during the obama administration and the reason that is is that the obama administration had determined a substantial process to determine whether it was proper or not to release the detainee. now in order to be released, it is the unanimous decision of the senior national security officials and then it also further requires the secretary andefense to certify that individual, the security arrangements with the individual or secured to help keep americans safe and what we have learned is that this process has worked. of the detainees who have

been either confirmed or suspected of rejoining the fight were released during the bush administration. detainees thatf have been accused or confirmed to retrain the fight were released under the current administration. mr. richmond: mr. thompson, let me -- look, this is very difficult for subject, and i understand being an elected official and i think all of the witnesses on the republican side are elected and when elected because of different spots ability, but let me ask you a question. would you just be in favor of closing the general prison facility we have in leavenworth now? no, i would not be in favor of closing the facility. that would have an undue process on our economy. when talking with officials, -- detainees coming

from entente obey would create a very serious concern. especially to the detainees that we are a house at fort leavenworth. mr. richmond: it is for minimum, well, i guess minimal security? mr. thompson: correct. withichmond: so you are ok the economic development and the jobs that are created by housing minimum, but you just want to go to ask him for a few detainees are several detainees from guantanamo? mr. thompson: i'm in leavenworth. i mean, we are known for prisons. we are known to be able to house prisoners. except these prisoners are much different than any of the others we have seen or have seen. they are 80 of the worst that we know of. there is a specific reason why there at guantanamo bay and we would not want them in fort leavenworth or leavenworth for the effects it would have on our community and honor citizens. not even the economic concerns,

economicluding the concerns, but including the psychological concerns it would have to all of our veterans, our goldstar family members, and anyone else out there. if i could also address mr. gude who is talking about the symbolism of guantanamo bay and the reason for its closure, that simple is him is something president obama has used for the example of why it should be closed, but that is not good to dissipate with it being closed. that is going to stay with it. we don't forget about 9/11 even though these structures have now been built over where the old ones have fallen. we are going to continue to have that burden and we are going to have to worry about that threat. i would also reiterate that mr. 's own written statements in january 2016 said symbolism is fading. mr. richmond: thanks the gentleman. chairman: we now recognize that a moment from south carolina. >> what year was the 9/11 attacks on new york? mr. gude: 2001.

you are talking about detaining people in charleston. what year was that? mr. gude: 2002. mr. duncan: what year was this committee formed? mr. gude: 2004. mr. duncan: what i'm showing is that we had to begin prosecuting a war against those who attacked us. would we captured enemy combatants on the battlefield, we had to figure out what to do with them, correct? mr. gude: yes. mr. duncan: the homeland had to figure how we were going to respond to terrorist attacks on soil. we created a brand-new committee within the halls of congress to inually talk about the security of the homeland.

for your information, the recidivism rate or the number of retaining his -- detainees the return to the battlefield is at about 30%. it doesn't matter if they were released from the bush administration or the obama administration. how many terrorist went to the chattanooga recruitment statement -- recovery facility? mr. gude: one. mr. duncan: 1, 1, it only takes one to kill a large number of americans in the world. whether they are released by bush or release by obama, it only takes one to commit heinous againstterrorism americans. so we know the dod study said that 30% of those released regardless of who released them have returned to the battlefield. i would argue that american lives have been lost because they returned to the battlefield. your argument that bush released more and more returned to the

battlefield just doesn't hold water. italy takes one terrorist to do that. mr. thompson, you heard governor haley talk about doing an assessment and we know it august they did a site assessment at fort leavenworth. what kind of communication have a had with you? mr. thompson: representative duncan, they have had no conversation with myself or no or little conversation with our city, or local law enforcement or officials. she and governor brownback sent a letter asking for this, correct? mr. thompson: correct. there are 80 detainees who could potentially becoming. we don't know who of those 80 are coming. are 44 that cannot be released at all and then there are 10 or seven that are being prosecuted and three have been convicted. we getting the seven are we getting the three are getting the four argued in the 27?

four or are we getting the 27? we don't know. have no idea because we are not being talked to and that is one of the things that i would want and i would want for our community or any community that would look at having these detainees. mr. duncan: exactly. have any of you gentlemen visited the prison at guantanamo bay? mr. bouchard: no. mr. gude: no. mr. thompson: no. thompson, imr. have. in 2001, 2002, when we started catching enemy combatants, they took them to guantanamo bay. time magazine" loves to show pictures of an outdoor facility and people cooking and detainees being in a fenced in area, since 2002, we have built some pretty

substantial prison facilities there. security, there is low security, i don't think there is any prisoners in the low security area, there is medium security, and there is maxim security. it is much like a prison in your county. they have the ability to cook their own food and do their own laundry. it is much like you see in county and state facilities. then there is a maximum security facility. in maximsoners held security, khalid sheikh mohammed , he has no cure and occasion with any other prisoners. he has his own room, his own 24/7.he is monitored they are muslim. they have to have their area to pray.

they have an area outside of the compound where they can go out, ist some fresh air, but it connected to their cell. they don't have any other contact with the other prisoners. there are special circumstances holding muslim terrorists that want to harm america and a special prison facility has been built on guantanamo bay specifically for that purpose. in addition, there is a courtroom facility built in one tom and obey -- built in byntanamo bay paid for taxpayers. they have secure access to go to counsel with their legal counsel. if they came to the military brig in charleston, i do believe it is going to cost the taxpayer additional resources to create or re-create what we already have an guantanamo bay to house

these very special prisoners. are you set up the same way in guantanamo bay based on my description of the cellblocks? mr. thompson: we are not set up for thatmr. thompson: -- mr. thompson: we are not set up for that. to build this new facility, it would take at least three years. of $91 million may be up to -- mr. duncan: is the dod coming up with these plans right now? because they are not having any conversation. are they doing this unilaterally? isse are the facilities it going to have, when they talk to you -- wouldn't they talk to you? talkedmpson: i haven't to military officials on military duty. i can't tell you what they are doing. i have looked on the map.

there is a royce cow and girl scout camp in the center. there is no water. there is no electricity. it cannot connect to that area. much less build it. the also told that have tomo bay detainees have almost specialized security watching over them. mr. duncan: so if we've got to build all of these facilities, why do we go out to louisiana and build on the high ground of the bayou? there are thousands and thousands of undeveloped acres. why are we talking about fort leavenworth or charleston? it is interesting when you bring that closer to home, i do believe. mr. thompson: guantanamo bay, away from harming

citizens. that is one of the biggest concerns that we have, bringing them to united states soil. talking about charleston where there are communities of veterans living there, that is going to cause concern,e threat economic impact social impact, all of these things just by moving here. gentleman's time has now expired and the gentleman now recognizes the ranking member. mr. richmond: i just wanted to let you know that there is no higher ground in the bayou. i just wanted to tell you that. [laughter] chairman: the chair thanks the members for their very valuable testimony today and the chair thanks them for their questions. some additional questions from the witnesses and we ask you to respond to these in writing pursuant to the committee rule 7e.

the subcommittee stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> our c-span campaign 2016 continues to travel across the country to honor winners of our student cam competition. laramieing winners from -- laramie junior high school. their honorable mention winning video and access to higher education. we travel to south dakota to visit winners. the final stop includes a visit to delano middle school in minnesota where third prizewinners were honored for their video. a special thanks to our cable partner, comcast, charter to help it just for helping to coordinate. -- for helping to coordinate.

♪ >> this morning on capitol hill, members of the house, energy and commerce committee held a hearing on energy regulation and modernization. we will take you there live at 9:30 a.m. eastern c-span3. a hearing on the pet medication industry. executives testify before a house energy committee. that will be on c-span2. >> republican presidential candidate donald trump discussed his foreign-policy plan and the fight against terrorism, improving u.s. relationships with russia and china and improving the military. from washington, dc, this is 45 minutes.

mr. khalilzad: in my recently published memoir i tell the story of coming from afghanistan to the united states legally. [applause] teenager and: as a my later service as a u.s. iraqmat in afghanistan, and united nations. andyzing what we did right drawing lessons for the future. opportunity me an backcceed and i try to pay

a little by my service to the united states. book, i would like everyone to read it and to borrow a phrase from mr. trump, it will make your head spin. primaries wind down, donald trump delivers a his anticipated speech on foreign-policy philosophy. this is a critical moment for america and the world. ii,e the end of world war 70 years now, the united states has supported a world order that has precluded war among the major powers.

-- fromprevented dominating critical regions in asia, europe and the middle east. by maintaining a favorable balance of power, by creating, expanding and , andining strong alliances by seeking areas of cooperation and reconciliation with rivals. but while war among major powers have been precluded we have been embroiled in several costly and protracted conflicts. the world has become more complex, unstable, and

dangerous, one in which rival powers are more aggressive, hostile regimes are pursuing weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons, long-range missiles, and cyber capabilities, and the threat of terrorism and extremism is acute. indeed, the international order, the state system created by the west, is it self under attack by revisionist states and rising powers with alternative concepts of order. as often seen in our history,

after a period of great excursion during the first decade of the 21st century, post 9/11, we are now in a period of withdrawal and retreat. things can still get a lot worse. we have a sluggish economy, growing inequality, rising debt and debt service. our infrastructure needs attention and the demand for domestic programs is growing. pressure is rising to reduce expenditure on national security at a time when we need to pay more attention to our security needs. against this backdrop, the presidential primaries have shown that our country is deeply to --cted and will rise or polarized about america's purpose or mission around the world. mr. trump has been a provocative voice in this debate. his message has resonated with a significant part of our

electorate. the national interest has invited mr. trump to elaborate upon his distinctive views of -- views about america's role in the world and how he would lead america as commander in chief. we will extend similar invitations to the other candidates. we are delighted mr. trump is here. please join me in welcoming him. thank you very much. [applause] mr. trump: thank you for the opportunity to speak to you, and thank you to the center for

national interest for honoring me with this invitation. it truly is a great honor. i'd like to talk today about how to develop a new foreign policy direction for our country, one that replaces randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy, and chaos with peace. it's time to shake the rust off america's foreign policy. it's time to invite new voices and new visions into the fold, something we have to do. the direction i will outline today will also return us to a timeless principle. my foreign policy will always put the interests of the american people and american security above all else. it has to be first, has to be. that will be the foundation of every single decision that i will make. [applause]

mr. trump: america first will be the major and overriding theme of my administration. but to chart our path forward, we must first briefly take a look back. we have a lot to be proud of. in the 1940's, we saved the world. the greatest generation beat back the nazis and japanese imperialists. then, we saved the world again. this time, from totalitarianism and communism. the cold war lasted for decades but, guess what, we won and we won big. democrats and republicans, working together, got mr. gorbachev to heed the words of president reagan, our great president, when he said, "tear down this wall." [applause] mr. trump: history will not forget what he did.

a very special man and president. unfortunately, after the cold war, our foreign policy veered badly off course. we failed to develop a new vision for a new time. in fact, as time went on, our foreign policy began to make less and less sense. logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, which led to one foreign policy disaster after another. they just kept coming and coming. we went from mistakes in iraq to egypt to libya, to president obama's line in the sand in syria. each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos and gave isis the space it needs to grow and prosper. very bad. it all began with a dangerous idea that we could make western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interests in becoming a western democracy.

we tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed. civil war, religious fanaticism, thousands of americans and just killed lives, lives, lives wasted, horribly wasted. many trillions of dollars were lost as a result. the vacuum was created that isis would fill. iran, too, would rush in and fill that void, much to their really unjust enrichment. they have benefited so much, so sadly, for us. our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster. no vision. no purpose. no direction. no strategy. today, i want to identify five main weaknesses in our foreign policy. first, our resources are totally over extended.

president obama has weakened our military by weakening our economy. he's crippled us with wasteful spending, massive debt, low growth, a huge trade deficit and open borders. our manufacturing trade deficit with the world is now approaching $1 trillion a year. we're rebuilding other countries while weakening our own. ending the theft of american jobs will give us resources we need to rebuild our military, which has to happen, and regain our financial independence and strength. i am the only person running for the presidency who understands this, and this is a serious problem. i'm the only one -- believe me, i know them all, i'm the only one who knows how to fix it. [applause] mr. trump:

secondly, our allies are not paying their fair share, and i've been talking about this recently a lot. our allies must contribute toward their financial, political, and human costs, have to do it, of our tremendous security burden. but many of them are simply not doing so. they look at the united states as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us. in nato, for instance, only 4 of 28 other member countries besides america, are spending the minimum required 2% of gdp on defense. we have spent trillions of dollars over time on planes, missiles, ships, equipment, building up our military to provide a strong defense for europe and asia. the countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this

defense, and if not, the u.s. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. we have no choice. [applause] mr. trump: the whole world will be safer if our allies do their part to support our common defense and security. a trump administration will lead a free world that is properly armed and funded, and funded beautifully. thirdly, our friends are beginning to think they can't depend on us. we've had a president who dislikes our friends and bows to our enemies, something that we've never seen before in the history of our country. he negotiated a disastrous deal with iran, and then we watched them ignore its terms even before the ink was dry. iran cannot be allowed to have a

nuclear weapon, cannot be allowed. remember that, cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. [applause] mr. trump: and under a trump administration, will never, ever be allowed to have that nuclear weapon. [applause] mr. trump: all of this without even mentioning the humiliation of the united states with iran's treatment of our ten captured sailors - so vividly i remember that day. in negotiation, you must be willing to walk. the iran deal, like so many of our worst agreements, is the result of not being willing to leave the table. when the other side knows you're not going to walk, it becomes absolutely impossible to win -- you just can't win. at the same time, your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them. you've made that agreement, you and have to stand by it and the world will be a better place.

president obama gutted our missile defense program and then abandoned our missile defense plans with poland and the czech republic. he supported the ouster of a friendly regime in egypt that had a longstanding peace treaty with israel, and then helped bring the muslim brotherhood to power in its place. israel, our great friend and the one true democracy in the middle east, has been snubbed and criticized by an administration that lacks moral clarity. just a few days ago, vice president biden again criticized israel, a force for justice and peace, for acting as an impatient peace area in the region. president obama has not been a friend to israel. he has treated iran with tender love and care and made it a great power.

iran has, indeed, become a great, great power in just a very short period of time, because of what we've done. all of the expense and all at the expense of israel, our allies in the region and very importantly, the united states, itself. [applause] mr. trump: we've picked fights with our oldest friends, and now, they're starting to look elsewhere for help. remember that. not good. fourth, our rivals no longer respect us. in fact, they're just as confused as our allies, but in an even bigger problem is they don't take us seriously anymore. the truth is they don't respect us. when president obama landed in cuba on air force one, no leader was there, nobody, to greet him. perhaps an incident without precedent in the long and

prestigious history of air force one. then, amazingly, the same thing happened in saudi arabia. it's called no respect. absolutely no respect. do you remember when the president made a long and expensive trip to copenhagen, denmark, to get the olympics for our country, and after this unprecedented effort, it was announced that the united states came in fourth -- fourth place? the president of the united states making this trip -- unprecedented -- comes in fourth place. he should have known the result before making such an embarrassing commitment. we were laughed at all over the world, as we have been many, many times. the list of humiliations go on and on and on. president obama watches helplessly as north korea

increases its aggression and expands further and further with its nuclear reach. our president has allowed china to continue its economic assault on american jobs and wealth, refusing to enforce trade deals and apply leverage on china necessary to rein in north korea. we have the leverage. we have the power over china, economic power, and people don't understand it, and with that economic power, we can rein in and we can get them to do what they have to do with north korea, which is totally out of control. it is he has even allowed china to steal government secrets with cyber attacks and engaged in industrial espionage against the united states and its companies. we've let our rivals and challengers think they can get away with anything, and they do.

they do at will. it always happens. if president obama's goal had been to weaken america, he could not have done a better job. finally, america no longer has a clear understanding of our foreign policy goals. since the end of the cold war and the breakup of the soviet union, we've lacked a coherent foreign policy. one day, we're bombing libya and getting rid of a dictator to foster democracy for civilians. the next day, we're watching the same civilians suffer while that country falls and absolutely falls apart. lives lost, massive moneys lost. the world is a different place. we're a humanitarian nation, but the legacy of the obama-clinton interventions will be weakness, confusion and disarray, a mess.

we've made the middle east more unstable and chaotic than ever before. we left christians subject to intense persecution and even genocide. [applause] mr. trump: we have done nothing to help the christians, nothing, and we should always be ashamed for that, for that lack of action. our actions in iraq, libya, and syria have helped unleash isis. and we're in a war against radical islam, but president obama won't even name the enemy, and unless you name the enemy, you will never ever solve the problem. [applause] mr. trump: hillary clinton also refuses to say the words radical islam, even as she pushes for a

massive increase in refugees coming into our country. after secretary clinton's failed intervention in libya, islamic terrorists in benghazi took down our consulate and killed our ambassador and three brave americans. then, instead of taking charge that night, hillary clinton decided to go home and sleep. incredible. clinton blames it all on a video, an excuse that was a total lie, proven to be absolutely a total lie. our ambassador was murdered and our secretary of state misled the nation. and, by the way, she was not awake to take that call at 3:00 in the morning. and now, isis is making millions and millions of dollars a week selling libya oil. and you know what? we don't blockade, we don't bomb, we don't do anything about it. it's almost as if our country doesn't even know what's

happening, which could be a fact and could be true. this will all change when i become president. to our friends and allies, i say america is going to be strong again. america is going to be reliable again. it's going to be a great and reliable ally again. it's going to be a friend again. we're going to finally have a coherent foreign policy based upon american interests and the shared interests of our allies. [applause] we're getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world. our moments of greatest strength came when politics ended at the water's edge.

we need a new rational american foreign policy, informed by the best minds and supported by both parties, and it will be by both parties - democrats, republicans, independents, everybody, as well as by our close allies. this is how we won the cold war, and it's how we will win our new future struggles, which may be many, which may be complex, but we will win if i become president. [applause] mr. trump: first, we need a long-term plan to halt the spread and reach of racal islam. containing the spread of radical islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the united states and indeed the world. events may require the use of military force, but it's also a

philosophical struggle, like our long struggle in the cold war. in this, we're going to be working very closely with our allies in the muslim world, all of which are at risk from radical islamic violence, attacks, and everything else. it is a dangerous world, more dangerous now than it has ever been. we should work - thank you. [applause] mr. trump: we should work together with any nation in the region that is threatened by the rise of radical islam. but this has to be a two-way street. they must also be good to us. remember that. they have to be good to us, no longer one-way. it's now two-way. and remember, us and all we're doing, they have to appreciate what we've done to them. we're going to help, but they have to appreciate what we've done for them. the struggle against radical

islam also takes place in our homeland. there are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. for every case known to the public, there are dozens and dozens more. we must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies. we have no idea where these people are coming from. there's no documentation.

there's no paperwork. there's nothing. we have to be smart. we have to be vigilant. a pause for reassessment will help us to prevent the next san bernardino or frankly, much worse. all you have to do is look at the world trade center and september 11th, one of the great catastrophes, in my opinion, the single greatest military catastrophe in the history of our country. worse than pearl harbor because you take a look at what's happened, and citizens were attacked, as opposed to the military being attacked -- one of the true great catastrophes. and then there's isis. i have a simple message for them. their days are numbered. i won't tell them where and i won't tell them how. we must -- [applause] we must, as a nation, be more unpredictable. we are totally predictable. we tell everything. we're sending troops. we tell them. we're sending something else. we have a news conference. we have to be unpredictable. and we have to be unpredictable starting now. but they're going to be gone. isis will be gone if i'm elected president. and they'll be gone quickly. they will be gone very, very quickly. [applause]

mr. trump: secondly, we have to rebuild our military and our economy. the russians and chinese have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look at what's happened to us. our nuclear weapons arsenal, our ultimate deterrent, has been allowed to atrophy and is desperately in need of modernization and renewal. and it has to happen immediately. our active duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today. the navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during this same period of time. the air force is about one-third smaller than 1991. pilots flying b-52s in combat missions today. these planes are older than

virtually everybody in this room. and what are we doing about this? president obama has proposed a 2017 defense budget that in real dollars, cuts nearly 25% from what we were spending in 2011. our military is depleted, and we're asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global warming.

we will spend what we need to rebuild our military. it is the cheapest, single investment we can make. we will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to mankind. our military dominance must be unquestioned, and i mean unquestioned, by anybody and everybody. but we will look for savings and spend our money wisely. in this time of mounting debt, right now we have so much debt that nobody even knows how to address the problem. but i do. no one dollar can be wasted. not one single dollar can we waste. we're also going to have to change our trade, immigration and economic policies to make our economy strong again. and to put americans first again. this will ensure that our own workers, right here in america, get the jobs and higher pay that will grow our tax revenues, increase our economic might as a nation, make us strong financially again. so, so important. we need to think smart about areas where our technological superiority, and nobody comes close, gives us an edge. this includes 3d printing,

artificial intelligence, and cyber warfare. a great country also takes care of its warriors. our commitment to them is absolute, and i mean absolute. a trump administration will give our servicemen and women the best equipment and support in the world when they serve and where they serve. and the best care in the world when they return as veterans and they come back home to civilian life. our veterans -- [applause] mr. trump: our veterans have not been treated fairly or justly. these are our great people and we must treat them fairly. we must even treat them really, really well, and that will happen under the trump administration. [applause] mr. trump: finally, we must

develop a foreign policy based on american interests. businesses do not succeed when they lose sight of their core interests and neither do countries. look at what happened in the 1990s. our embassies in kenya and tanzania -- and this was a horrible time for us -- were attacked and 17 brave sailors were killed on the u.s.s. cole. and what did we do? it seemed we put more effort into adding china into the world trade organization, which has been a total disaster for the united states. frankly, we spent more time on that than we did in stopping al qaeda. we even had an opportunity to take out osama bin laden, and we didn't do it. and then we got hit at the world trade center and the pentagon. again, the worst attack on our country in its history.

our foreign policy goals must be based on america's core national security interests. and the following will be my priorities. in the middle east our goals must be, and i mean must be, to defeat terrorists and promote regional stability, not radical change. we need to be clear-sighted about the groups that will never be anything other than enemies. and believe me, we have groups that no matter what you do, they will be the enemy. we have to be smart enough to recognize who those groups are, who those people are, and not help them. and we must only be generous to those that prove they are indeed our friends. [applause] mr. trump: we desire to live peacefully and in friendship with russia and china. we have serious differences with these two nations, and must regard them with open eyes, but

we are not bound to be adversaries. we should seek common ground based on shared interests. russia, for instance, has also seen the horror of islamic terrorism. i believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible. common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. good for both countries. some say the russians won't be reasonable. i intend to find out. if we can't make a deal under my administration, a deal that's great -- not good, great -- for america, but also good for russia, then we will quickly walk from the table. it's as simple as that, we're going to find out. fixing our relations with china is another important step -- and

really toward creating an even more prosperous period of time. china respects strength and by letting them take advantage of us economically, which they are doing like never before, we have lost all of their respect. we have a massive trade deficit with china, a deficit that we have to find a way quickly, and i mean quickly, to balance. a strong and smart america is an america that will find a better friend in china, better than we have right now. look at what china is doing in the south china sea. they're not supposed to be doing it. no respect for this country or this president. we can both benefit or we can both go our separate ways. if need be, that's what's going to have to happen. after i'm elected president, i will also call for a summit with

our nato allies and a separate summit with our asian allies. in these summits, we will not only discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments, but take a fresh look at how we can adopt new strategies for tackling our common challenges. for instance, we will discuss how we can upgrade nato's outdated mission and structure, grown out of the cold war to confront our shared challenges, including migration and islamic terrorism. [applause] mr. trump: i will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative. but if america fights, it must only fight to win. [applause] i will never send our

finest into battle unless necessary, and i mean absolutely necessary, and will only do so if we have a plan for victory with a capital "v." [applause] mr. trump: our goal is peace and prosperity, not war and destruction. the best way to achieve those goals is through a disciplined, deliberate, and consistent foreign policy. with president obama and secretary clinton we've had the exact opposite -- a reckless, rudderless, and aimless foreign policy, one that has blazed the path of destruction in its wake. after losing thousands of lives and spending trillions of dollars, we are in far worse shape in the middle east than ever, ever before. i challenge anyone to explain

the strategic foreign policy vision of obama-clinton. it has been a complete and total disaster. i will also be prepared to deploy america's economic resources. financial leverage and sanctions can be very, very persuasive, but we need to use them selectively and with total determination. our power will be used if others do not play by the rules. in other words, if they do not treat us fairly. our friends and enemies must know that if i draw a line in the sand, i will enforce that line in the sand. believe me. [applause] mr. trump: however, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be

my first instinct. you cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. a super power understands that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength. although not in government service i was totally against the war in iraq. very proudly. saying for many years that it would destabilize the middle east. sadly, i was correct. and the biggest beneficiary has been iran who is systemically taking over iraq and gaining access to their very, very rich oil reserves. something it has wanted to do for decades and now, to top it off, we have isis. my goal is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations. that is why i also look and have to look for talented experts with approaches and practical idera